Vegetarianism

by **professorpan** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>My own personal view is that there are millions of men, women and children dying around the world and that our efforts should be focused upon alleviating human suffering first. Once we've sorted this out we should focus our attention upon the - very real - suffering humanity inflicts upon the animal kingdom.<hr></blockquote> We can do both at the same time -- there's nothing stopping us from working to alleviate human suffering while also making dietary choices to save animals from suffering. Either/or is a false dichotomy. If more people in the Western countries cut down on meat consumption, there would be more food to feed the starving. It takes a lot of grain and soy to fatten up the average steerm, and that food could feed people. That's a simplistic answer, I know, and allocating that extra grain requires political and economic readjustment, but it's essentially true.

by **FourthBase** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:56 am

Havanagilla, thanks for the B12 insight. Because I still eat eggs and dairy and also take supplements, I think I'm getting enough. I don't mind exploiting animals for their milk and eggs...yet.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:25 pm

I noticed someone awhile back mentioned this source--I believe that have their own website as well as publish an outstanding magazine. They base their research on the diets of traditional societies that have sustained human life over long spans in perfect health. They regard vegetarianism as really not viable in terms of reproductive health and growth and development of the young. Weston Price Foundation gives information on how to maximize nutrition in the preparation of both vegetarian and meat foods, and also on the most sustainable and nourishing forms of agriculture. I became quite sick on a grain based diet--I put the blame on overuse of soy and genetic predispostion to not digesting wheat. I think many folks can (and do) live long healthy lives as vegetarains. But I think gm food is going to hurt these people and maybe even kill them. The Weston Price people believe it is possible to really minimize the use of animal products, especially by using long cooked bone broths, but that to eliminate them will cause numerous problems and diseases. This took awhile, but it happened to me, so based on experience I respect their opinions.

by **chillin** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:58 pm

Eating spirulina sounds like a good idea to me. I've never tried it, but apparently it's mind-blowingly nutritious. I've toyed with the idea of farming it, which seems to be a very simple operation. Some think it's the solution to world hunger, because it's easy to grow in warm climates, nutritious and portable. <a href="http://www.spirulinasource.com/microfarms.html">www.spirulinasource.com/microfarms.html</a>

by **Sword Wielding Brit** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:48 pm

Hello. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> I found this board through a google search for converting from ezboard to phpbb (not liking the idea of the yuku switchover) and found I am enjoying reading here. As far as vegetarianism is concerned, humans are neither carnivores nor herbivores. They are onmivores and can digest mostly everything. With the amount of hormones and other awful stuff pumped into today's raised-for-human-consumption animals, the human body is finding it can't easily digest some of it. Big surprise there. Not just that, but our diets, particularly in the US (where I live) revolve around meat and convenience food. If we actually returned to a proper diet that we are supposed to eat, i.e. with no convenience foods, etc., then I'm sure we'd all find our digestive systems returning to how they were supposed to function. Yes, eating meat is distasteful (no pun intended) to many, however humans are omnivores and if we get over the PC idea that eating meat is icky, maybe we can get back to eating more natural foods overall. I know it sounds like I love eating meat. Far from it, I don't really like the stuff. I don't eat pork at all, no bacon etc., and don't eat beef in steak form. I could live off fish though. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> __________________________ Cheers, Maz <a href="http://go.ezboard.com/binternationaldebate" target="top">International Debate</a>

by **FourthBase** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:23 pm

Hello Sword Wielding Brit, welcome! The issue is not that killing and eating them is "icky". The issue is that it is categorically wrong, immoral. Arguments against meat are not some recent PC invention. Hindus, Buddhists, Pythagoreans... Evolution gave us an omnivore's digestive system, sure. Evolution also gave us a conscience. When does the conscience take precedence over the digestive system as an evolutionary imperative? I say now. No, wait: YESTERDAY. FWIW, our omnivorous ancestors only occasionally ate meat. The "hunter-gatherer" archetype is a myth. The "caveman diet" is a fraud. Prehistoric diets almost entirely consisted of plant life. And even if meat was occasionally needed to survive once upon a time, it is not needed now. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 3/10/06 3:23 pm

by **havanagilla** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:39 pm

4thb, are you sure hinduism and buddhism are all categorically veggie ? I don't think I ever heard that before. I mean, I know certain sects/denominations are, but not the religion as a rule. Tibetan Buddhism is famous for animal rights, but I am not sure about the other buddhisms. Would like to know more.

by **Sword Wielding Brit** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:47 pm

Hello FourthBase, thanks for the welcome. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Sorry for using "icky", I was trying to find another word, but it escaped me. Still does. I blame my amnesia on my current bout of 'flu. Yes, a pathetic excuse, but there it is. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> OK, let's be honest with man's conscience. It only comes into play when it's convenient. Or when an individual has made that leap such that their conscience really does govern everything they do. If man's conscience governed his every move, there would be no war, no poverty, and we'd be working planet-wide to eradicate disease and suffering. But that's not the real world. None of us is perfect. I didn't touch on hunter-gatherers (Ted Nugent comes to mind here) or the caveman diet, but do understand your points. I think man has a long way to go, morally, before everyone realises that eating dead animals is abhorrent. Hello havanagilla <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> I have a bunch of resources on Buddhism, I'll look that up for you... brb. __________________________ Cheers, Maz <a href="http://go.ezboard.com/binternationaldebate" target="top">International Debate</a>

by **FourthBase** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:57 pm

IIRC, Tibetan Buddhists are actually not vegetarian, neither are Japanese (except for Zen monks) and Chinese (except certain sects)...but in general Buddhists in India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Burma are. Hindus strongly encourage vegetarianism, but many eat meat. Certain Taoist sects are vegetarian, too.

by **Sword Wielding Brit** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:01 pm

I see my post count is stuck... gosh I love ezboard </sarcasm> OK here we go, just a few quickie quotes for you: From <a href="http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_noble_eightfold_path.htm" target="top">The Noble Eight-Fold Path</a>, it is wrong to raise animals for slaughter: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Buddha mentions five specific kinds of livelihood which bring harm to others and are therefore to be avoided: dealing in weapons, in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), in meat production and butchery, in poisons, and in intoxicants<hr></blockquote> And I found this at <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/story/1/story_178_1.html" target="top">Beliefnet.com</a>. Posting the whole article because I like it so much (hope that's OK! And no I'm not Buddhist, but I do embrace many of their values, do yoga and meditate): <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Q. Do you have to give up meat, alcohol, and sex to be a good Buddhist? A. Not at all. Being a good Buddhist entails many things, especially the mindful practice of ethical morality, meditative awareness, and wisdom coupled with love and unselfishness. So meat, alcohol, and sex are not the top evils for Buddhists. Since one of Buddhism's principal tenets is compassion and nonviolence, cruelty to animals--and to all forms of life--is discouraged. In this light, vegetarianism, a common practice among many Buddhists, makes good sense; it is a way to practice nonviolence and lovingkindness as well as gain health benefits. At the same time, there are plenty of meat-eating Buddhists in both Asia and the West. One prominent example is the Dalai Lama. In fact, most Tibetans and Japanese Buddhists eat meat. In a Buddhist scripture, the Sutta Nipata 245, the Buddha said: "Anger, arrogance, inflexibility, hostility, deception, envy, pride, conceit, bad company, these are impure foods, not meat." Regarding sex, which is a healthy part of human life, there are Buddhists--laymen and women as well as teachers and spiritual leaders--who are celibate. But celibacy and teetotaling are not required, except among the strictest of the traditional orders of renunciate monks and nuns. Of course, the misuse of alcohol and addictive sexual behavior are proscribed, since overdoing these things does not lead to a healthy spirituality, Buddhist or otherwise. As a rule of thumb, understand that any behavior harmful to oneself or another is a Buddhist no-no. Buddhism is not about beliefs but about practice, not about what we think and believe, but what we do and how we live. One can be a genuine Buddhist without necessarily subscribing to a specific cosmology or any particular belief, including vegetarianism, reincarnation, or the existence of other worlds and lives. A Buddhist practitioner generally follows what Buddha himself called The Middle Way, a wise, peaceable, and virtuous practice-path, free of extreme beliefs, dogma, and biases. Walking in the Buddha's footsteps is about enjoying the fruits of awakened living in the here and now, not in another life. Consistently striving to live a mindful life dedicated to spiritual awakening frees us from confusion and suffering and brings peace and joy into our lives--and into the lives of those around us. It is said that we meditate, chant, and pray by ourselves. But it is not just for ourselves that we progress.<hr></blockquote> __________________________ Cheers, Maz <a href="http://go.ezboard.com/binternationaldebate" target="top">International Debate</a>

by **mxmendo** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Responding to a variety of comments on various posts. Eating lower on the food chain has far less impact on the environment -- water use, land use, and less animal waste. First off I am a comitted omni. Generally speaking the above is often true. But here in rural northern cali, i eat a variety of non-indigenous species that results in the same effect. Turkeys and especially wild pigs, both non-native and omnivorous, go about literally vacuuming up food resources traditionally used by native species, greatly affecting herbivores and even some mid-level carnivores. I have little ethical problem in killing these animals for consumption (not for sport), and i do so myself with repsect and thanks. The same goes for imported african bullfrogs that can/are decimate native amphibian and other aquatic species accross the U.S. (these guys are delicious and plentiful in my backyard pond, every meat-eater interested in doing a little to save our native fuana should get munching.) And calling ethical choices "performance art" is specious. Are pacifists performance artists? Are antiwar activists performance artists? To someone who does not believe in killing sentient beings unnecessarily, becoming a vegetarian is a daily affirmation of nonviolent principles. Non-violence in affirmed by striving for peace with the presence of justice, not worrying about hamburger consumption. Equating human life as equal to animal life is exactly the rationalization slave owners and other fascists made. Also, insisting that we are "meant to" eat meat is also fallacious. We have choice to eat whatever we wish -- we aren't foraging in the forest anymore, straining to meet our biological needs. FWIW, our omnivorous ancestors only occasionally ate meat. The "hunter-gatherer" archetype is a myth. The "caveman diet" is a fraud. Prehistoric diets almost entirely consisted of plant life. And even if meat was occasionally needed to survive once upon a time, it is not needed now. Myths and fraud indeed. There is no universal diet that ever was or will be. People evolved eating whatever they could, with cultural factors rather than health or environment often dictating diet habits. Prehistoric diets never consisted "almost entirely" of plant life. Starting in Africa, even the crudest tools from homo erectus, etc. were obviously better suited to meat processing that vegetation procurement. They were not mighty hunters but rather mighty scavengers, likley working in effecient unision to fend off lesser scavengers such as jackals and dogs after the lions and hyenas were done, or simply stealing a kill from a lone predators such as leopards. Here in the prehistoric americas evidence of meat eating is universal, with the tools directly reflecting this. The presence of specialized tools such as modified deer scapula for harvesting grass seeds are far outweighed by a huge variety of tools for killing, processing and altering (scraping, sewing, crushing) animal products. Indeed cultural diversification in these latter tools is far greater that the relatively universal mano/metate and pestle/mortar. Meat was not "occasionally" necessary, it was a fundamental necessity, especially fat. There is a reason that prehistoric human cannabilism often focused on the brain, as it is something like 50% fat. Ok, ranting over. (Don't get me going on how prehistoric societies were all peaceful and harmonious with nature, either. I've seen several remains with points stuck in 'em, or evidence of nasty fractures, often "parry blows" so often associated with domestic violence.) mx

by **marykmusic** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I see food preparation as holy, certainly the intake should be, and our culture now prevents the natural connection between a person and her food.<hr></blockquote> It's about awareness level. This encompasses philosophy, but also a view of The Big Picture: if there weren't so many people eating pork, there wouldn't be nearly as many pigs being bred. Same with beef and chicken. We don't force our teenaged boys to eat as we do; the older one works at a fast-food joint and eats the burgers now and then. I don't go out of my way to buy that stuff, though. The younger one has a pot of chili cooking on the stove right nw, made with organic beans and tomatoe and free-range turkey. It's a special treat for him, and we're looking forward to him farting the next several days... [not!] The other half of the pot o' beans is meatless and I'll make some real Southern cornbread... okay, traditionally it's made with bacon drippings and I use olive oil in the iron skillet... get it hot before pouring the batter in. That's the secret. I love to cook. This is what struck me when I grabbed Havanagila's sentence. It's also about preparing your food with a reverent attitude. Just like Dr. Emoto's water works, food also "knows" what kind of attitude it's being handled with, and this affects the quality and digestability of the final product. So, y'all are invited over for supper... --MaryK Edit: I just bought a magnet bumper sticker from my favorite source in Flagstaff. Here's what it says, and Dan's words about it: If Cheney had come to me, I would have just given him the bird. I thought up this sticker within hours of hearing that Vice President Dick Cheney had accidentally shot his friend, lawyer Harry Whittington. Just eight days later, I was ready to ship out some of the first stickers designed to commemorate the shot heard 'round the world. Another idea I had for a sticker was one that said, "If you're going to shoot a lawyer, you should really try to kill him." But then the peace activist in me thought better of this idea. I should make clear here that I would never actually give a bird to Cheney. That is just a figure of speech that refers to a certain obscene gesture. I am not a hunter, and I don't eat meat, so it is unlikely that I would ever have a dead bird in my possession to give to Cheney, even if I wanted to. I have a visceral dislike of hunting. I suppose there may be cases where hunting serves a purpose related to game management and population control. But more often it seems an unnecessary and savage sport. I might be OK with it if we could somehow give the animals guns. Then at least we could have a fair fight. I am no more likely to give Cheney a live bird than a dead bird. If I gave him a live bird, he would probably just kill it, or torture it, or put it in a secret prison. Nah, the only kind of bird Cheney will ever get from me is the obscene kind. Dan R. Frazier Hey, this is a good guy with his philosophy right up front! Doesn't own a car; used a bike with a trailer to carry his table and stuff, where I met him during the first week of fall semester last year. I was impressed. Bought some stuff, T-shirt, stickers... find him here: <a href="http://carryabigsticker.com" target="top">carryabigsticker.com</a> Have fun! --MaryK Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=marykmusic>marykmusic</A> at: 3/10/06 8:35 pm

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:28 am

I became quite sick on a grain based diet darkbefore, you might want to check out Celiac's disease, otherwise known as gluten intolerance. PM me if you want more info. It has to do with intolerance of grains with gluten, such as wheat.

by **Sword Wielding Brit** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:59 am

I was thinking the same thing, chiggerbit. I know a TON of people who've done Atkins, then eased up slowly and just gone to low carb, then ended up not being able to eat any wheat-based products. It's like their bodies ended up 'forgetting' how to process gluten. __________________________ Cheers, Maz <a href="http://go.ezboard.com/binternationaldebate" target="top">International Debate</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:18 am

I think it runs in families. Sometimes it shows up in young children, sometimes not until in later adulthood. Often it is triggered by physical stress, such as surgery or childbirth. I suppose that might explain the connection with Atkins, but not sure.

Vegetarianism

Suffering

Re: Suffering

Weston Price Foundation

diet

Re: diet

Re: diet

Re: diet

Re: diet

Re: diet

Re: diet

Re: diet

Re: diet

Re: Weston Price Foundation

Re: Weston Price Foundation

Re: Weston Price Foundation

Who is online